Android Authority |
- SPenBoard Switcher app makes switching keyboards a lot easier for S Pen devices
- Samsung releases new Series 3 Chromebox with design update, no change in specs
- Panasonic launches Toughpad FZ-A1 in Australia; Korea, Canada and UK are up next
- Sharp can’t make 5 inch 1080p panels fast enough, said to be behind in shipments
- LG Nexus 4 serial numbers reveal that less than half a million units were sold
- Vodafone UK to start selling used phones with their “Nearly New” program
- LG’s 5.5 inch 1080p flagship phone, the Optimus G2, will be unveiled at CES
- Is LG is giving the Nexus 4 a plain old back cover in order to meet demand?
- Nexus 10 goes back on sale via Google Play
- 2012: Year of the Patent
| SPenBoard Switcher app makes switching keyboards a lot easier for S Pen devices Posted: 03 Jan 2013 02:27 AM PST
An all-new app created by an XDA Developer is here and will make things a lot easier for a Samsung smartphone users who have an S Pen. With SPenBoard, users can now switch keyboards with ease and are at liberty to choose a keyboard app that sports handwriting recognition and/or the popular gesture-based typing depending on the movement of the stylus. To make things a lot easier and avoid the cumbersome and tedious process of changing keyboards manually, LegendK95 created SPenBoard Switcher. But in order for it to work, your device should be endowed with the capability of detecting the removal of the stylus, which would automatically allow you to change from any other keyboard to the one stock S Pen-friendly Samsung keyboard to enjoy specific stylus functions. You can go to Samsung’s website to learn more about the new revolutionary tool that does away with outdated input methods. The S Pen is far more advanced than a conventional stylus and provides accuracy and speed, without compromising on comfort. You could be surprised that you are using almost an actual pen as the app lets you detect the pressure applied and adjust it accordingly. The app has already been tested on Samsung Galaxy Note 2 devices and should be compatible with any other S Pen-enabled device as well. Related Posts |
| Samsung releases new Series 3 Chromebox with design update, no change in specs Posted: 03 Jan 2013 02:23 AM PST
Launched back in May of last year, the Samsung-built Series 3 Chromebox, which runs Google's Chrome OS, looks a tad like the Mac Mini – even though it sports a black coat of paint. Considering everything that the Korean has gone through in the past year, we don't blame them for wanting to steer clear from anything too Apple-like. Meet the new Chromebox. The 2013 Series 3 Chromebox comes with a brand new design, while keeping the specs virtually the same.
The small desktop computer is definitely curvier than the predecessor with its rounded corners. Inside, you'll find the same dual-core 1.9GHz Intel Celeron B840 processor, Intel HD graphics, 4GB RAM, 16GB solid state disks, and WiFi a/b/g/n. The new Series 3 Chromebox has six USB 2.0 ports, two Display Ports (compatible with HDMI, DVI, and VGA), a DVI port, headset jack, and a 2W mono speaker. At 2.64 pounds, it’s slightly heavier than the 2012 version. If you dig the new look of the updated Chromebox, it unfortunately hasn't gone for sale yet anywhere but in the UK, where the price is set at £279 ($450). The U.S. release date and price haven't been shared yet by Samsung. Related Posts |
| Panasonic launches Toughpad FZ-A1 in Australia; Korea, Canada and UK are up next Posted: 03 Jan 2013 02:08 AM PST
There's not a lot of movement (not official, at least) in the technology world with less than a week until a major event like CES, but that doesn't mean we can forget about gadget launches altogether. As a matter of fact, one could even try to take advantage of this particularly quiet time to ensure it gets the kind of media attention it could otherwise not hope for. And while we can't be certain Panasonic thought of it that way, the fact of the matter is that the once upon a time highly anticipated ToughPad A1 is finally seeing official daylight as we speak. Marketed as the FZ-A1, the "bullet-proof" tab has been unveiled in Australia, where it should start selling in a matter of days. The RRP (recommended retail price) in the land down under is a hefty $1,499, but that doesn't exactly come as a shocker. After all, you don't see very often gadgets that are MIL-STD 810G and IP65 compliant, or in plainer words that can withstand drops from up to 4 feet high, that are completely spill proof and functional in temperatures from 14 to 122 degrees Fahrenheit.
The ruggedness of the Toughbook is not the only selling point for Panasonic either, with the rest of the spec sheet looking pretty decent. The 10.1-inch 1,024 x 768 pixels resolution display is protected by an anti-glare film, the 1.2 GHz dual-core CPU and 1 GB of RAM make for an honorable hardware configuration, while the satellite-based GPS and optional 3G should ensure that you are always connected and down to earth. The 10-incher is equipped with dual 5 MP/2 MP cameras, while the user replaceable 33.9 Wh battery should hold enough "juice" for 10 hours on a single charge. The 16 GB of on-board memory can be extended via the microSDHC memory card slot, while other small, but important treats include a micro HDMI port, Bluetooth 2.1, Wi-Fi a/b/g/n and a bundle of security features like Marvel Trusted Boot and hardware assisted storage encryption.
Everything can't be rosy about the Toughbook however, so we can't say we're very thrilled about the running of Android 4.0 ICS or the 993 grams weight. Panasonic is yet to announce Toughbook availability outside Australia, but seeing as the tab has just gotten the stamp of approval from Korea's FCC-like agency, an Asian launch is probably just around the corner. Canada and UK are also in the cards to get the FZ-A1 by the end of the month, while the FCC certification from last summer gives us hope that the US will get the "world's most secure fully rugged Android tablet" at some point too. Who’s excited about this seemingly unbreakable gadget? Related Posts |
| Sharp can’t make 5 inch 1080p panels fast enough, said to be behind in shipments Posted: 03 Jan 2013 01:59 AM PST
You’re going to see a ton of 1080p smartphones get announced during the next few months. CES is next week, Mobile World Congress is next month, and rumors say Samsung will probably host their own event in April. The thing is, will there be enough 1080p screens to satisfy demand? In 2012 we saw Qualcomm’s inability to make enough Snapdragon S4 chips impact the availability of numerous handsets. It looks like the same thing might happen in 2013, but for screens. According to DigiTimes, Sharp is facing some serious issues making enough 5 inch 1080p panels. Their exact quote:
Who else makes smartphone sized 1080p panels? Three other companies come to mind. There’s JDI, the joint venture between Sony, Hitachi, and Toshiba, there’s Innolux, and last up is LG. There are strong rumors suggesting that LG will launch a 5.5 inch 1080p device either at CES or MWC, Sony will obviously use JDI panels for the Xperia Z, and as for Innolux … we have no idea who their customers are yet. Then there’s Samsung. They know that the next Galaxy S has to have a 1080p screen, but we have yet to hear if they’ve figured out how to make AMOLED panels that can deliver such an insane DPI level. We’ll probably hear more about the GS4 as we get closer to the launch date. Leaks have a habit of occurring at just about every company. Back to Sharp, there is some good news we’d like to share. That DigiTimes piece says that most of the kinks related to mass producing IGZO panels have been ironed out. What exactly is IGZO? It’s a type of LCD technology that’s said to deliver ridiculously low power levels and ultra high screen resolutions. Related Posts |
| LG Nexus 4 serial numbers reveal that less than half a million units were sold Posted: 03 Jan 2013 01:06 AM PST
Just about everything that’s mass produced, even food, comes with a serial number of some form or another. Back in the day, companies used to issue serial numbers that were quite easy to understand. The first unit to roll off an assembly line had the serial number 0001, the second was 0002, and so on and so forth. Due to the competitive nature of many industries, serial numbers have become alphanumeric strings that are damn near impossible to decipher. Thanks to some talented individuals at XDA-Developers, they’ve cracked the Nexus 4 serial number code, and they’ve made an incredible claim. They say that using their system, it’s estimated that less than half a million units have been produced. To be more specific, they say LG made about 70,000 Nexus 4 units in October, 90,000 in November, and finally 210,000 last month. Add up the numbers and you get 370,000 units. There’s no other word to describe that figure other than horrible. Just to give you some perspective: Google, the company that pretty much runs the internet, had problems processing Nexus 4 orders due to the demand their servers encountered. Speaking about Google, they’re not commenting on the accuracy of these figures, obviously, but you have to think they’re pretty pissed at LG. First they give LG the Nexus contract, only to have them fail to make enough units. And now it’s been discovered that they make their serial numbers easy enough for just about anyone to read! How many Nexus 4 units should have been made? Ramping up takes time, we get that, but LG should have had a million units available at launch. That’s not a lot of phones in the grand scheme of things. To have made less than half that in 90 days says a lot about LG’s priorities. There’s probably a glut of Optimus G inventory getting dusty in some South Korean warehouse, meanwhile the unlocked unbranded and stock version of said phone is in such high demand that it’s being sold for nearly double the retail price on eBay. Face, meet palm. Related Posts |
| Vodafone UK to start selling used phones with their “Nearly New” program Posted: 03 Jan 2013 12:17 AM PST
Smartphones, once viewed as a luxury item, have now become an essential part of millions of people’s lives. The thing is, not everyone can afford the latest and greatest. Companies know this, so they create midrange and low end devices. In fact, a significant chunk of the smartphones sold in China cost less than $150. But there’s another way to buy a smartphone, one that most people often overlook: buying a second hand device. You’d be surprised how affordable a flagship phone from a year ago can be if you buy it used. For the price of a new Samsung Galaxy S3, you can buy you and someone in your family a Galaxy S2 and still have some money leftover. Vodafone UK, looking to make it easier for people to own smartphones, has just launched a program called “Nearly New”. As the name suggests, they’ll sell you a second hand device that’s in very good condition for a discounted price. Better yet, they’ll even give you a 12 month warranty should anything go wrong. So which devices are being offered? iPhones of course, but let’s ignore those, shall we? In the Android department we have the Samsung Galaxy S3 and the HTC One S, two very respectable devices, with the former being a smartphone that many folks consider to be the best phone of 2012. How cheap are the rates? Well, here’s the thing, they’re not very impressive. The GS3, new, can be had for free on a 37 GBP/month plan. If you buy it used, that comes down to 34 GBP/month. That’s a savings of 36 GBP over the course of a year, which comes out to roughly $60. To be perfectly honest with you, you’re much better off buying a second hand device from eBay or Amazon. If you’re in the UK, you should also check out the PSC Forum. This writer can vouch for the person who runs that website, Steve Litchfield. Related Posts |
| LG’s 5.5 inch 1080p flagship phone, the Optimus G2, will be unveiled at CES Posted: 02 Jan 2013 11:09 PM PST
Yesterday we filed a report saying LG’s 5.5 inch 1080p flagship phone for 2013 was going to be announced at Mobile World Congress in February and that it would start shipping during the same month. That rumor came from a Korean website called ETNews. Today, courtesy of DigiTimes, we have some more rumors about this device. They say it’s going to be called the Optimus G2, it will be powered by the Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Prime MSM8974, and most importantly, they say it’s going to be unveiled at the Consumer Electronics Show next week. The story goes on, saying that Sony will announce the Xperia Z on January 7th, and that said phone will have the same specs as HTC’s Butterfly/DNA, except it’ll feature a better camera. Huawei will show off the D2, which uses the company’s own quad core chip, and a 6.1 inch tablet device called the Ascend Mate. We already know quite a bit about the Mate, but we had no idea it would feature a 4,000 mAh battery. That’s 400 mAh shy of the battery in the 7.9 inch iPad mini. Are big phones going to become a large product category? Probably not, but it’s definitely a slice of the market that will keep on growing. That DigiTimes piece says less than 5% of the phones shipped in 2012 had a screen that measured 5 or more inches diagonal. That number is expected to hit between 10% and 15% in 2013, which should come out to around 100 million units. What’s really important here is when are all these phones going to land on store shelves? Anyone can announce something, but putting an object into the hands of millions of people around the world is the real challenge. Is LG going to have issues making screens for the G2? Is Huawei going to have issues making their quad core chip? We just have to wait and see. Related Posts |
| Is LG is giving the Nexus 4 a plain old back cover in order to meet demand? Posted: 02 Jan 2013 10:28 PM PST
LG’s Nexus 4 is one of the best smartphones on the market, assuming you’re lucky enough to find one. Google says LG is having issues making them, but that still doesn’t explain why Google can’t provide a decent online shopping experience. But let’s forget about the blame game for a second and focus on what’s important here, making customers happy. According to Autoomobile, people have started receiving a slightly modified Nexus 4. Instead of the pretty back cover that shimmers in the light depending on the angle, this new variant is plain and dull. The site goes on to say that they’ve contacted LG and are waiting for a response. Our gut tells us this decision was made in order to increase production. Does a boring back cover make the Nexus 4 a worse device? No, don’t be silly, but it is a disappointment that LG has failed to figure out how to deliver on the initial promised design that many people, ourselves included, have come to love. It makes us feel like LG was sleeping at the wheel. How could they not have anticipated all this demand? Were they that ignorant of what the market wanted? It’s been 2013 for less than 100 hours, but we’re already looking forward to the next Nexus. It will probably have a 1080p screen, 2+ GB of RAM, and maybe even an ARM Cortex A15 processor. We’re hoping HTC will make it, but we’re also realistic and expect that the contract will go to either Samsung or one of the Chinese handset firms (Huawei, ZTE, Lenovo) that are eager to make a name for themselves. We’re sad to say this, but LG continues to disappoint us. The Optimus 4X shipped more than half a year after it was announced. The Optimus G was announced a month after the 4X hit store shelves. And now this whole Nexus 4 thing … 2012 was not kind to South Korea’s other smartphone company. Update: Turns out this story has a good chance of just being a prank. Related Posts |
| Nexus 10 goes back on sale via Google Play Posted: 02 Jan 2013 07:47 PM PST
If you recently visited Google Play Store, you'd notice that the virtual shelves on the hardware aisle have been empty for over a month – save for the Nexus 7. Although the hottest Nexus item on the store is still out of stock, the Nexus 10 tablet is now available for purchase once more. Both the 16GB and 32GB variants of the Nexus 10 are now up for grabs from Google Play, with Google promising that the tab will be delivered to your doorstep in less than one week. The 16GB Nexus 10 is still going for $399, while the 32GB model can be had for $499. It seems like there's ample stock of the 10-inch Google slate, but if you're really interested, we suggest you don't wait a moment longer to snag one and proceed to the cashier. Those who are still on the fence may want to read our Nexus 10 review. Are you going to seize the moment and get the Nexus 10? Related Posts |
| Posted: 02 Jan 2013 05:38 PM PST
We were dominated in 2012 with news of lawsuits and patents. Everywhere you looked some huge tech company was suing another or purchasing a company for patents. While Apple vs. Samsung was the biggest patent story, it may not prove to be the most important one. 2012 may have brought us a myriad of lawsuits, but those may just be posturing for a bigger fight. Will the fight bleed into 2013, or will we see new thinking in tech patents and licensing? Rounded CornersWhen Google's David Lawee said the company didn’t believe patenting rounded corners was possible, it was a sign that tech companies were on the honor system. Google was very forthcoming in that it hadn't been aggressively pursuing patents for its designs. If they felt that other companies would do the right thing in terms of licensing and design, it's understandable they felt no need to protect themselves legally. A comment like that also cuts to the core of the patent matter: Intellectual Property. Intellectual property can be very hard to argue, as one side is essentially saying the other stole an idea. It's very possible for two sides to come to the same conclusion, or even a similar one, at the same time. Intellectual property is very vague and confusing, and could point to why the patent system is perceived to need reform. Often times, companies rush their concepts to market trying to pace the competition. Doing this often leads to another company patenting a similar or exact same idea before what could be the originator. If you're first to patent it, you're first to own it. While being first to market with a device or technology has credibility, nothing has credibility like a patent in the eyes of the law. Sometimes, slow and steady really does win the race.
Apple versus SamsungThe heavyweight bout of the year had nothing to do with pre-fight weigh-ins and Las Vegas. The real 12-round massacre was done in a courtroom by a few dozen very bright people in suits. Apple vs. Samsung was the powerhouse lawsuit that set the tech world on its ear. The two biggest companies, at odds in nearly every respect, squared off in court for much of the summer. Apple claimed Samsung purposefully stole its design, or intellectual property. Samsung claimed it was simply a matter of two companies thinking similarly. What transpired was for the ages: two of the most important companies in technology (not just mobile tech) would travel the world, arguing their case in various courts. A victory in the UK would not mean one in Australia, or the United States. A judge in the UK would even declare what is and isn’t "cool", muddying the intellectual property waters further. Apple would win a case, but be forced to pay Samsung's legal fees in an other. We didn’t get the clean, concise decisions we had all hoped for. We got a bar fight where nobody even slapped each other on the back between shots of Jameson afterward. We can easily point to Apple's $1 billion victory over Samsung here in the United States as the largest blow financially, but it was not pleasing to either side. Apple was going for the jugular and felt it nicked Samsung shaving. Samsung argues that the jury foreman was bias, based on a lawsuit he was involved in years ago with Seagate. Seagate, most notably an external hard drive company, is one which Samsung holds a major stake in. Samsung's argument in the wake of the Apple verdict is that the foreman, Velvin Hogan, willfully held back information during jury selection that he had been involved in the lawsuit and possibly jaded as a result. Let's not get too caught up in the minutiae of it all. Much of what is and has happened is posturing. Maybe the grandest posture of it all is that Apple hasn’t directly sued Google, who has the most to benefit long term. Apple has settled the suit with HTC out of court, and effectively sued Samsung… but not so much as named Google. Why is that?
The Google problemEarly in 2012, Google successfully warded off a few looming lawsuits by purchasing Motorola. Google's CEO Larry Page was quoted as saying the purchase of Motorola will "enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies." A purchase not only for an in-house partner in mobile tech, but a move to ward off those potential lawsuits. There was no hiding the fact Google wanted Motorola in large part for the impressive patent portfolio. Even at that, Google is not Motorola. So why hasn’t Google fallen into anyone's cross-hairs, namely Apple? Sometimes looking backwards is the only way to see the future. Many moons ago, Apple tangled with Microsoft. In doing so, Apple argued that Windows was stolen product (sound familiar?) and it wanted Microsoft to stop using it. At the time, the PC market was fairly new and growing quickly. Not as quickly as mobile technology has, but quickly for the time. This was the early 80's. Disco was dead, and the geek were about to inherit the earth. Steve Jobs just wanted a bigger slice of the pie, plain and simple. Apple's contention was that the user interface of Windows was poached directly from Apple. Apple may have been right. Bill Gates and Microsoft did program some software for Apple back when Microsoft was known for its DOS interface. It was after Microsoft had its hands on an Apple machine that Windows came to fruition. Looking at a time line, it's fairly clear to see how Apple could believe Windows was a copycat of iOS. Both were a form of graphic interface computation, a very new concept at the time. With Microsoft having an existing partnership with IBM, its potential for distribution was much greater than the smaller Apple, who was doing everything in-house. Over time, Apple stewed and Microsoft cruised. It wasn’t until 1992 that the tides of its ongoing litigation with Microsoft changed forever. It was then that courts decided graphic interface computing was "natural", basically saying it was the only way to operate. As such, Apple had no leg to stand on in regard to whether or not the Windows platform was actually 'stolen' property. Apple could fight on for licensing rights, but as proving intellectual property is difficult to begin with, it would probably sink them. At the time, Apple was the underdog. Against a giant like Microsoft, it would probably bankrupt itself in legal fees. This could be an indicator as to why Apple has never actually sued Google, or named them in any lawsuits. If you nudge Google, you awaken the Android beast. By addressing Android legally, you will be in for the same fight all over again. If this process of apps and icons we all have grown to love and adopt is considered "natural", then there is no case. Legally, Apple exhausted that avenue years ago. Google would simply lean on that ruling as a precedent, and probably win. By going after Google, you possibly destroy your own market share… a dwindling number Apple simply cannot afford to damage. While Apple has more resources now than in the '80s, it may know deep down that fighting Android is like throwing money away. Android partners, however, are different. They are simply device makers. Sure, Samsung is rumored to be exploring its own OS, but that may never see the light of day or similar adoption. At heart of the Apple-Samsung lawsuit was the design of the devices, never the utility. The same can be said for Apple's fight with HTC, which was settled amicably out of court. A nominal feeWe will continue to see patent litigation in 2013, no doubt about it. An even more important issue will come to fruition through a byproduct of these lawsuits. Where we will see the new fight is in licensing agreements. When a lawsuit is won, it doesn’t mean the loser can no longer do business as usual. A successful lawsuit just means you used that technology or design without consent, and must pay for it. Sometimes that infringement is accidental and unknown, sometimes it's not. While it seems unfair to concentrate on Apple for examples, the company was responsible for taking just about everyone to task in 2012. We can start with the Apple-Samsung scenario, in which the various lawsuits set a precedent for licensing. It's also at the heart of why Samsung immediately wanted to see the results of the Apple-HTC agreement. While $1 billion may seem like a huge amount of money, and it is, Samsung can cover that with relative ease considering the cash it has on hand. A big hit to Samsung, but that's not the end of the matter nor the heart of the issue. Licensing fees are the core issue, and it's the biggest factor in Samsung being so anxious to get its hands on that Apple-HTC settlement. In just perusing public record, you'll find that Apple has reportedly agreed to let HTC pay $6-8 in licensing fees for each instance they are used, but would like Samsung to pay $30-40 per phone. While Apple set up a very convoluted plan to help Samsung "save money", it's a slap in the face. Much like the apology a UK court ordered Apple to publicly issue, a biased cross-licensing agreement is a dangerous line to walk for Apple. Taking on the largest manufacturer of mobile devices is commendable, but snubbing your nose at them only makes for a vitriolic backlash later, both from Samsung and consumers.
Everyone winsRecently, LG and Samsung have been tussling over OLED patents as they relate to mobile displays and TVs. While this has nothing to do with Android per se, it does lead to a possible solution. If we have an Open Handset Alliance, why shouldn’t we have an alliance of manufacturers who agree to arbitrate any patent disputes out of court? If such an alliance existed it would limit the damage done to reputation, as well as a variety of other factors. If LG and Samsung were members of such an alliance, their dispute could be handled outside the auspice of a courtroom. In fact, guidelines could be instituted to allow for fair licensing practices among members of this alliance. While things like displays or chipsets have little to do with Android, especially as much of that technology is used in TV or standalone computer displays, it does bring the parties involved together outside of a courtroom. This alliance doesn’t have to be limited to Android, either. This could be as simple as a mobile handset alliance, or a mobile technology alliance. We can all agree the patent system needs reform. We can also agree that the patent system, as a government agency, will reform slowly if at all. It can be further argued that the technology sector may need its own set of patent rules and logic, as it moves too quickly for the patent system An alliance of this sort can circumvent the slow process of patent litigation that we’ve grown accustom to, or at least create a mediate forum before a company decides to pursue litigation. In such a circumstance as a company feels slighted or wronged by someone using technology they believe to be theirs, they can invite the other party to a mediation. In this mediation, both sides present a case as to why the technology in question is theirs, or why they should be allowed to use it without paying licensing fees. Of course, a mediator agreed to by both sides would preside, and if an agreement can be reached for licensing they would enter a binding contract. If no such agreement can be reached, they either agree to not pursue the matter further or head to trial.
This could accomplish a variety of things. First, it could possibly eliminate the need for drawn out trials in which one or both sides feel as though the legal system let them down. At a mediation, they could more openly discuss the technology in dispute and not have quite the formal setting of a courtroom. This could avoid the bad-blood scenarios, as is the case with Samsung and Apple. Another benefit is the agreements are legally binding. Let's hypothesize that LG and Samsung sat down to mediation over their OLED displays. In this mediation, LG presents convincing evidence and arguments that Samsung indeed infringed on patents, and should pay royalties. Samsung's lawyers would then understand that pursuing this in a courtroom would do little more than waste time and money. The evidence presented by LG is strong, and there is little reason to believe a jury or judge will find in Samsung's favor. As a result, Samsung agrees to pay a licensing fee agreed on by both sides. Both parties avoid a very public and messy trial, leaving their respective egos and image in check. The largest beneficiary of such a process is the consumer. Without the vitriol between companies, the focus is on cooperation. Without the lengthy trial process, the focus is on innovation. By settling this in what can be called 'the old fashioned way', perhaps we can move forward. As mentioned before, sometimes you have to look back to see the future. Maybe there needs to be a new direction in regard to patents and licensing. 2013 and beyondWe will never see the end of patent litigation. It's been going on since the dawn of man in one respect or another. Discussions over who invented the wheel (insert Apple joke here) has brought us to who has a patent on OLED displays. The technology space is inhabited by very bright people coming up with very innovative ideas all the time. These products are designed to generate revenue, and anything that is designed to generate revenue is going to be questioned at some point. With so many companies stepping on each other's toes on technological breakthroughs, the next frontier is licensing fees. A win in court rarely means the loser must cease using the technology in question. Had they taken the actual phone and used it, that would be a different tale. In our world, the issue is intellectual property… and that's quite a nut to crack. Successfully arguing that you had an idea first is difficult at best, and rarely works out well for either party. Even if you win, your reputation takes a hit. Take Samsung and Apple. If we're being objective, Apple won primarily because Samsung was sloppy in concealing its designs. They openly discussed via email that devices needed to look "more like Apple", even though Google urged them to back away from that thinking. Rather than coming out the victim, Samsung looks a bit petulant in continuing the fight. Those internal emails have shown Samsung to be less than honorable in its intentions. Had the two sides been able to litigate, perhaps this could have been avoided. Go to litigation, get snippy with one another, then settle it amicably. In that scenario, considering the hit to both sides' reputation and public perception a trial brings, everyone wins. While the patent system does need reform, fair licensing fee guidelines are what need to be established for the future. Related Posts |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Android Authority To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment